Don’t Let Them Smell You Sweat: You’ll Seem Untrustworthy

2013-10-14

By Alexandra Sifferlin

There’s a reason why you should never let ‘em see — or smell — you sweat. You appear not just less confident, but less competent and less trustworthy as well.

It’s not exactly a revelation, but it is sobering — women are judged differently based on their sweat, according to a new study published in PLOS ONE. Experts in the field of perspiration have broken sweat down into three types: sweat from exercise, sweat in response to heat, and sweat from stress. Each is driven by a slightly different body process — exercise and heat sweat come from the body’s eccrine glands, which pump out clear, odorless water on the surface of the skin that is tinged with a bit of salt (these are the glands responsible for damp foreheads and clammy palms and feet). Stress sweat, however, comes from the more hirsute regions of the body — think scalp, armpits and groin — and is saturated with fats. Those aren’t odoriferous per se, but they serve as food for the bacteria that blanket the skin, and it’s those bugs that emit the hallmark BO signalling sweat under pressure.

And according to scientists from Monell Chemical Senses Center, that odor also affects how people perceive the sweatee. While previous work suggested that people changed their emotional reactions toward others based on their odor, the latest study found that people may also judge others on their compatibility and trustworthiness according to their scent.

The researchers asked 44 female participants to provide samples of underarm sweat at the start of the study, and under three different conditions — after exercising on a stationary bike for 15 minutes, after stressful events that the scientists created, and after the same stressful events but treated with an antiperspirant. The anxiety-producing exercises included preparing a speech for five minutes, doing mental math problems for five minutes, and five minutes of public speaking. Secret provided its Clinical Strength antiperspirant and funded the study, but did not influence its design or data, according to the scientific team.

The researchers then asked 120 male and female volunteers to smell the various sweat samples while watching videos of the women who provided the samples as they went about their daily duties at home, in the office or in a childcare setting. The evaluators rated the women they saw on how stressed or confident they appeared. Those who smelled samples of untreated stress sweat were significantly more likely to say the women to whom the samples belonged were more stressed than those who smelled the treated sweat. What’s more, men were more likely to see the stress-sweating women as less confident, trustworthy and competent when they were asked about those characteristics.

The scientists say this is the first study to link sweat odor to social perceptions, so it’s too early to say whether perspiration odor in all societies would have the same effect on trust and competence measures. The American culture places a premium on smelling fresh and on masking body odors, but other societies may not place as much value on hiding natural emanations. So in the U.S., the results could be a boon not just for deodorant and antiperspirant manufacturers, but for video conferencing ventures as well. The next time you’re nervous about a speech or a presentation, you might consider finding ways to not let them smell you sweat.

Transgender Showed Evolutionary Benefits in Ancestral Societies

2013-10-09

By Alexandra Sifferlin

A new paper published in the journal Human Nature finds that transgendered men were often seen as an asset in some societies.

Among hunter-gatherer communities, the social investments that transgender males made to their groups may have helped to sustain the transgender orientation into modern societies, say researchers led by Doug VanderLaan of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Canada.

VanderLaan and his colleagues studied 146 non-transgendered societies and 46 transgender societies in both current and older hunter-gatherer societies, and found that transgender men were considered useful to their communities as extra help in supporting the family, whether by maintaining households or by contributing to the raising of children. Those benefits provided an evolutionary advantage to the societies in which they belonged, allowing them to survive and remain healthy, and that in turn provided the opportunity for transgender attributes to continue into future generations, despite the fact that many transgender males did not have biological children of their own. Not surprisingly, this effect was strongest in communities in which both male and female contributions to the health of a family — in the form of emotional, social as well as financial and political support — were considered equally important. In these communities, discrimination against homosexual activity was rare, the authors report.

In fact, that condition was critical to the positive societal contributions of the transgender males. In order for the contributions of these men to benefit the community, they had to be accepted by its members. And that remains true today — people who identify as transgender, or with any other sexual orientation for that matter, become most productive if they can contribute their time and energy to a community that accepts and welcomes their support.

Social Attitudes About Sexual Orientation May Not Be As Open As Previously Thought

By Alexandra Sifferlin

We like to think we’re a progressive society that is accepting of all sexual orientations, but the latest survey shows anti-gay sentiment is higher than we think, and current methods for assessing attitudes about sexuality are not as accurate as they should be.

In a study published in the National Bureau of Economic Research, scientists found that current methods may not accurately capture both the size of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) population as well as attitudes toward them.

Overall, it’s hard to measure sexual orientation and opinions about sexual orientation because of persistent biases toward more socially acceptable responses. Researchers have found this trend even in computer-generated surveys where responses are anonymous.

So a team from Ohio State University and Boston University compared these survey techniques to another strategy that provided even more privacy and anonymity to participants, by guaranteeing that even the researchers could not connect the volunteers to their answers. Among the 2,516 U.S. volunteers who were randomly assigned to answer questions about their sexuality using one or the other survey method, those taking the more veiled survey were 65% more likely to report a non-heterosexual identity themselves and 59% more likely to report having a same-sex sexual experience than those using the standard survey technique.

The veiled method also revealed more people with anti-gay sentiment than among those taking the other type of survey. The participants were 67% more likely to disapprove of an openly gay manager at work and 71% more likely to admit that it was acceptable to discriminate against people who are lesbians, gay or bisexual.

“Comparing the two methods shows sexuality-related questions receive biased responses even under current best practices, and, for many questions, the bias is substantial,” the authors write.

Did the enhanced anonymity lead to more truthful responses? The researchers aren’t sure, but previous studies revealed that when responses are blinded, people do tend to express attitudes and opinions that are more raw and closer to their true beliefs. The scientists also can’t explain why those who were questioned under the more veiled technique were more likely to admit to both non-heterosexual orientation or experiences as well as more bias against them. While they suspect the two trends are independent of each other, it’s possible that the results also reveal something deeper about sexuality and social acceptance — or lack thereof — of LGBT identities.

How Eye Contact Can Backfire

2013-10-03

By Alexandra Sifferlin

We’re often told to maintain eye contact when speaking with others. But a new study published in the journal Psychological Science is poking holes in the theory that looking deep into someone’s eyes shows interest and boosts persuasion.

In fact, the University of British Columbia researchers report that in the midst of an argument, looking the other person in the eye won’t get them to agree with you. It actually may do the opposite.

The researchers tested the power of eye contact by asking 20 study participants to share their opinions of controversial issues such as affirmative action and assisted suicide, and then watch a video of a speaker chatting about various topics. The researchers used eye-tracking technology to determine when the participants were maintaining eye contact.

When the speaker in the video spoke about opinions the participant shared, the participant maintained eye contact more consistently. But when the speaker started covering topics the participant disagreed with, they looked away.

The participants were less likely to change their opinions if they were looking into the eyes of the speaker, especially when the speaker was also looking directly at the participant, rather than to the side of the screen. To test this again, the researchers had the participants watch more videos, but sometimes they were told to look into the speaker’s eyes, and other times they were instructed to look at the speaker’s lips. The participants who looked into the speaker’s eyes were once again less likely to change their opinions compared to participants focusing on the speaker’s lips.

“There is a lot of cultural lore about the power of eye contact as an influence tool,” said lead researcher Frances Chen, an assistant professor at University of British Columbia, in a statement. ”But our findings show that direct eye contact makes skeptical listeners less likely to change their minds, not more, as previously believed.”

Exercise As Effective As Drugs For Treating Heart Disease, Diabetes

2013-10-02

By Alexandra Sifferlin

Forget the pills — there’s new evidence that exercise may be as effective as medications in treating heart disease and diabetes.

Doctors now advise everyone, from young children to older adults, to become more physically active. It’s the best way to maintain a healthy weight, keep the heart muscle strong, and improve your mental outlook. But can exercise be as good as drugs in actually preventing disease and treating serious chronic illnesses?

That’s what researchers from the London School of Economics, Harvard Medical School and Stanford University School of Medicine wanted to find out. They compared the effect of exercise to that of drug therapy on four different health outcomes: heart disease, recovery from stroke, heart failure treatment and preventing diabetes.

The scientists pooled the results of 305 trials involving 339,274 people who were randomly assigned to either an exercise program or a drug-based therapy and found that there were no detectable differences between the two groups when it came to preventing diabetes and keeping additional events at bay for heart patients. And the physical activity was most powerful for participants who experienced a stroke. The only group that didn’t benefit from the exercise over drugs were patients with heart failure, likely because the strain of the physical activity wasn’t recommended for their condition.

The findings involving diabetes patients confirmed previous trials that documented how effective physical activity can be in bringing blood sugar levels down.

So why do most doctors prescribe drugs over exercise? There are more rigorous studies testing the effectiveness of drug therapies to treat common diseases, say the study authors, than there are studies that test the power of exercise. With these results, however, the researchers hope to see more work on how exercise can be a significant part of a treatment program for diseases ranging from heart problems to diabetes.

Those studies will need to analyze physical activity in the same way that drugs are studied, to determine how much exercise is needed to trigger beneficial changes in the body that can treat or prevent disease.

Currently, to maintain optimum health, federal experts recommend that people exercise at a moderate intensity for about 2.5 hours a week. But fewer than half of Americans meet that recommendation, and a third of Americans don’t get any exercise at all. The latest findings should encourage even those who aren’t active, however, since research shows even just talking a brisk walk can help lower the risk for high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes, and be as powerful as medications in keeping the body healthy.

Why you shouldn’t go to work sick

2013-09-26

By Dr. Jennifer Shu, Special to CNN

he average adult gets a cold about two or three times a year, with each one lasting up to a week, or sometimes longer.

Staying home from work every time you are sick could add up to a lot of missed days. In fact, it has been reported that up to 40% of lost time from work is due to the common cold, totaling about 23 million missed days per year.

Even though it can be tempting to go to work while you’re sick, here are some reasons why you are better off staying home:

You’ll get other people sick

Germs can spread from direct contact with a sick person or his or her secretions (such as from handshakes or touching shared objects like doorknobs). Some viruses can live on the skin or other surfaces for at least a few hours and continue to infect others.

In addition, viruses can spray a few feet following a cough or sneeze. Especially in the earliest part of illness, when you are most contagious, stay home if you work in close quarters with other people or if you handle food.

It’s also important not to go to work if you work with young children, the elderly or people with weak immune systems. The relatively minor illness you experience may cause more severe symptoms in these groups of people.

You’ll be less productive

It is hard to know the exact financial and physical toll that an illness takes on an individual or employer. Sure, you’ll be more productive than if you stayed home and didn’t do any work at all, but you may not be as sharp or efficient when suffering from a cold.

It may take longer to recover

Pushing yourself and working too much in the early stages of illness may actually prolong your recovery time. Studies have shown that lack of sleep can weaken your immune system and make you more susceptible to colds.

Conversely, getting enough sleep can boost infection-fighting cells and antibodies so you can get well faster. Do yourself a favor and stay home and rest.

Ideally, we would all be able to rest and recuperate during a cold. If that’s not possible, see if you can work from home so at least you won’t spread your germs.

If you must go to work, try to keep your distance from others, wash or sanitize your hands often, and cover coughs and sneezes with a sleeve or elbow. You can also cover with a tissue but be sure to throw it away immediately and then wash your hands.

Disinfect touched objects such as phones, doorknobs, and computer keyboards, and consider avoiding sharing items such as pens.

Why New Mothers Stop Breast-Feeding

2013-09-24

While nearly all mothers start breast-feeding their newborns, about half stop after a few weeks. The latest study explains why.

A team of researchers conducted over 2,700 interviews with 532 first-time mothers multiple times after they gave birth, starting 24 hours after delivery and ending at 60 days postpartum, about their breast-feeding choices. They report in the journal Pediatrics that women who worried from the start about their ability to nurse their infants were more likely to switch to formula sooner than those who didn’t have these concerns.

By the third day after delivering, over half of these women were worried about their babies’ ability to latch on, while 44% were concerned about breast-feeding pain, and 40% about their capacity to produce enough milk to nourish their infants.

Continue reading Why New Mothers Stop Breast-Feeding →

Eat Better and Stress Less: It’ll Make Your Cells (and Maybe You) Live Longer

2013-09-19

For the first time, researchers show how a plant-based diet, stress management and other lifestyle changes may lead to longevity.

It’s not quite the Fountain of Youth, but it may be the river that leads to it. In a paper published in the journal Lancet Oncology, scientists found that a small group of men who made changes in the way they ate and handled their emotional needs showed longer telomeres in their cells.

That’s exciting because previous research suggested that telomeres, which are protein and DNA-based complexes that cap the ends of chromosomes, regulate the aging of cells. Each time a cell divides, a section of telomeres erodes, and, like a burning candle wick, when telomeres are exhausted, so is the life of the cell.

Continue reading Eat Better and Stress Less: It’ll Make Your Cells (and Maybe You) Live Longer →

Teens gaining healthy habits, but not enough

2013-09-18

Smarter Kids Are Smart Enough to Avoid Alcohol and Drugs, Right?

2013-09-15

Maia Szalavitz

Maybe not. The latest study of twins shows that early bloomers may become heavier drinkers who start chugging earlier in life.

The research is part of an emerging but counterintuitive body of work that suggests kids who develop language and intellectual skills earlier are more likely to drink and take other drugs than their less intelligent peers.  In 2011, for example, British researchers found that women who were in the top third of the IQ range when tested in elementary school were more than twice as likely as those scoring in the bottom third to have used marijuana or cocaine by age 30; for men, the top ranked boys were almost 50% more likely to have taken amphetamine and 65% more likely to have used ecstasy (MDMA) by adulthood.

For decades, scientists had documented that those with lower IQ and less education were more likely to become addicted to alcohol or other drugs, probably because lower levels of education and lower IQ are associated with the damaging effects of poverty and because having less intelligence offers fewer mental resources to allow users to moderate and avoid problems.

The latest data, published in Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, doesn’t contradict those findings. Drug use is not the same as drug addiction— and a great deal of earlier research shows that higher intelligence is a protective factor against alcoholism and addictions, even though smarter people are more likely to drink or try drugs.

The researchers followed 3000 healthy identical or fraternal twins in Finland, focusing on the group who had significant differences in verbal development as children and who also turned out to have varied drinking behavior as adults. The twin who spoke her first words earlier or began reading earlier was nearly twice as likely as her co-twin to be drinking more at age 18. And twins who spoke first were four times as likely to get drunk once a month or more often than their later-speaking twins, who either hadn’t been drunk at all or did so less than once a month. Overwhelmingly, this drinking was not out of control and did not qualify them for a diagnosis of having an alcohol disorder.

“Social drinking in many countries and non-problematic drinking is more frequent and common among people with higher education,” says Antti Latvala, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki in Finland and lead author of the study. Why? What protects them from sliding into addiction?

Intelligence can serve as a vehicle for moderation when it comes to alcohol or drug use — the more educated people are, the more they internalize and appreciate the dangers and risks of overindulging. The higher education that’s correlated with greater intellect also puts more at stake for those who indulge in alcohol or drug abuse.

Intelligence can also spur more curiosity and openness to new experiences. And that includes experimenting with alcohol and drugs. “People have this impression that intelligence is somehow related to being introverted and bookwormish,” says Latvala, “But if you look at these large studies they definitely find this association with sensation-seeking and seeking different kind of experiences. [They’re] trying to learn new things  It could be related to the nature of intelligence.” Such experimentation doesn’t always lead to addiction or problematic behavior because this type of exposure often involves a few experiences before the person moves on to the next novelty.

Verbal intelligence may also often allow kids to better negotiate the social world, and since most social teenagers in Western societies drink, being social inevitably exposes them to alcohol. The study found that the more verbally skilled twins did have more friends who drank than their co-twins, so the connection might be reinforced culturally as well.

Although the study did not find that the early exposure to alcohol and drugs made the smarter twins more vulnerable to addiction, these twins weren’t entirely safe from the harms — including overdoses, drunk driving, sexual assaults and injuries — that can result from drinking or abusing drugs. Being smart doesn’t mean you are immune from drug-related dangers.